AKA William

Share

Today, the U.S. Department of Justice dismissed the first federal gay marriage challenge case — this is not the Boies-Olson federal Prop 8 challenge — saying that the DOJ it is not thsee right venue to tackle legal questions raised by a couple already married in California:

Plaintiffs are married, and their challenge to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) poses a different set of questions: whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by States that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits. Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no. [AP]

Probably what was expected, with DOMA in place.

But this is where it gets crazy. AMERICAblog obtained a full copy of the brief, and it looks like the DOJ believes DOMA is a big money-saver for the federal government.

UPDATE: The DOJ motion cites incest, underage marriage to dismiss DOMA challenge. Also confused, Huffington Post.

“The constitutional propriety of Congress’s decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress’s articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments. DOMA ensures that evolving understandings of the institution of marriage at the State level do not place greater financial and administrative obligations on federal and state benefits programs. Preserving scarce government resources — and deciding to extend benefits incrementally — are well-recognized legitimate interests under rational-basis review.

. . . If [a State] were to permit homosexuals to marry, these marital benefits would, absent some legislative response, presumably have to be made available to homosexual couples and surviving spouses of homosexual marriages on the same terms as they are now available to opposite-sex married couples and spouses. To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose.“

I mean, this is nutty. Civil rights are too expensive?

Yes, I know that when the U.S. Supreme Court recently rejected the DADT case, there was a kind of twisted logic involved that made some sense.

But I can’t figure what sense it makes for the DOJ to defend DOMA in any way (other than to invoke it), but as a kind of governmental double-coupon?

I’ll update as more info comes in.

Obama’s Motion to Dismiss Marriage case